We should be happy—only 56,000 U.S. troops remain. As the Iraqis have said from the beginning (despite U.S. assurances), the U.S. will never leave Iraq…unless the oil runs out.
We have built the largest and most expensive embassy in the world in Baghdad. It is the size of Vatican City and most likely more influential.
Obviously the oil is a major (read THE major) factor - but with 56,000 troops Iraq can't even boast being the country with the most US troops (besides the US and Afghanistan) - that distinction lies with Germany. We've simply added Iraq to the ever growing list of countries with US military presence. While spread out through a number of countries (most notably South Korea and Japan), the US military presence in the Pacific is nothing to scoff at (and is most likely to grow in the near future). I'm not sure what my point here is, except that every country we have ever fought in and won (no troop presence in Vietnam), we have left troops behind. Anyone believing US assurances of pulling all troops, has little understanding of US military history (60 years after WWII and we STILL have troops in Japan!!)
It IS interesting. Apparently, it has been a long term strategy of the U.S. to gain a military presence in as many foreign nations as possible, through war or other means. The question is: Is it, or has it been, a good strategy for our own self interest, or has it hurt our safety and economy?
I wonder if Vietnam ever considered themselves a colonial nation and thought of including a section in the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 which would ensure a Vietnamese military presence in the U.S.?
At over $700 billion, American military spending accounts for 48% of all military spending in the world. Military outlay by the U.S. plus its European NATO allies accounts for about 70 percent of world military spending. Add in America's other allies and friends, such as South Korea, and the total share of global military outlay hits 80 percent. This, at a time that Colin Powell says, "I'm running out of enemies."
Even subtracting the costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars leaves American military outlay around five times that of China and 10 times that of Russia. Combine the odd collection of adversaries, enemies and rogues — Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria — and the U.S. spends perhaps 25 times as much.
6 comments:
We should be happy—only 56,000 U.S. troops remain. As the Iraqis have said from the beginning (despite U.S. assurances), the U.S. will never leave Iraq…unless the oil runs out.
We have built the largest and most expensive embassy in the world in Baghdad. It is the size of Vatican City and most likely more influential.
Still, it is a positive thing—to Americans.
Pass the cane. 'despite U.S. assurances', of course, should be 'despite U.S. assurances to the contrary' or 'U.S. denials'
Obviously the oil is a major (read THE major) factor - but with 56,000 troops Iraq can't even boast being the country with the most US troops (besides the US and Afghanistan) - that distinction lies with Germany. We've simply added Iraq to the ever growing list of countries with US military presence. While spread out through a number of countries (most notably South Korea and Japan), the US military presence in the Pacific is nothing to scoff at (and is most likely to grow in the near future). I'm not sure what my point here is, except that every country we have ever fought in and won (no troop presence in Vietnam), we have left troops behind. Anyone believing US assurances of pulling all troops, has little understanding of US military history (60 years after WWII and we STILL have troops in Japan!!)
This is old, but interesting to compare levels of deployed troops over the years:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/maps/9.html
It IS interesting. Apparently, it has been a long term strategy of the U.S. to gain a military presence in as many foreign nations as possible, through war or other means. The question is: Is it, or has it been, a good strategy for our own self interest, or has it hurt our safety and economy?
I wonder if Vietnam ever considered themselves a colonial nation and thought of including a section in the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 which would ensure a Vietnamese military presence in the U.S.?
At over $700 billion, American military spending accounts for 48% of all military spending in the world. Military outlay by the U.S. plus its European NATO allies accounts for about 70 percent of world military spending. Add in America's other allies and friends, such as South Korea, and the total share of global military outlay hits 80 percent. This, at a time that Colin Powell says, "I'm running out of enemies."
Even subtracting the costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars leaves American military outlay around five times that of China and 10 times that of Russia. Combine the odd collection of adversaries, enemies and rogues — Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria — and the U.S. spends perhaps 25 times as much.
The question is: why?
Post a Comment